Disposed

Captain Manish Kumar, S/O Shri P.K.Sharma v. Pratibha Shipping Company Ltd., Cin NO.U35110MH1995PLC085742

Bombay HC21 Aug 2013CP/194/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court restored a company petition for withdrawal. After the petitioner claimed satisfaction of the suit through a deposit and undertook notice to claimants, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the withdrawal of the company petition and disposed of the matter.

What the court decided

Captain Manish Kumar, S/O Shri P.K.Sharma Vs Pratibha… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cp-194.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO.194 OF 2013

¶4

Captain Manish Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Pratibha Shipping Co. Ltd. .. Respondent

¶5

Ms. Neha Mehta for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w Mr. Rashmin Khandekar a/w Mr.Sanjeev Haridas i/by M/s. Chitnis & Co. for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21 AUGUST 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. By order passed today i.e. 21 August 2013 in Company Application (L)No.371 of 2013, the company petition is restored at the stage of admission by recalling the ex parte order dated 2 May 2013.

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent hands over two demand drafts of Rs.16,95,000/-. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view thereof, the claim made by the present company petition stands satisfied and she has received instructions to withdraw the petition.

¶11

In the Company petition, an advertisement was issued pursuant to the order dated 2 May 2013. In the order passed in Company Application (L) No.371 of 2013, this ex parte order has been recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the

¶12

ppn 2 cp-194.13.doc

¶13

advertisement, certain claims have been received by the petitioner. The learned counsel states that after receipt of the claims, no one has come forward to participate in the petition. However, since these claims have been made pursuant to the ex parte order, now stands recalled, it will be open to these claimants to file appropriate proceedings/petitions if so advised and withdrawal of the present petition will not affect their rights to prosecute their claims against the respondent-company. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to give notice to the claimants and inform them that the petition is withdrawn and that their rights are unaffected and the claimants can file separate petitions if they so desire. This will be done within four weeks from today.

¶14

With this clarification, the company petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such.

¶15

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Captain Manish Kumar, S/O Shri P.K.Sharma v. Pratibha Shipping Company Ltd., Cin NO.U35110MH1995PLC085742

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Captain Manish Kumar, S/O Shri P.K.Sharma v. Pratibha Shipping Company Ltd., Cin NO.U35110MH1995PLC085742

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay as Provisional Liqudiator Ofimpel Petro Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Samrat Cylinders and Heavy Engineering Company Private Limited

Ahura Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator , High Court Bombay

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs Siddharth Automobiles Ltd.

D. J. Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Glasstech Industrier India Private Limited Cin- U26100MH1997PTC107962

Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. Vs Indsur Global Ltd., Cin NO.U40100MH1994PLC080707